In the
presidential election that brought George W. Bush to power, the moral
character of the candidates was a significant factor with some voters.
Among those who rated honesty as an important factor influencing their
choice of candidate, 80% said they voted for Bush. These voters were
disgusted with Bill Clinton, not only for his sexual relationship with
White House intern Monica Lewinsky but for lying about it. They wanted
someone to bring sound ethical values to the White House and believed
that Bush was the man to do it. What have the last three years told us
about Bush's ethics?

The discrepancies between Bush's prewar claims about weapons of mass
destruction and the postwar reality have convinced many that they know
the answer to this question. But let's give him the benefit of the
doubt about the intelligence on
Iraq
and look to other issues. Do Bush's statements and actions reflect a
coherent, defensible ethic?

First, what does Bush think about the proper reach of the federal
government? In his preelection memoir, "A Charge to Keep," he was
eloquent about his support for states' rights, individual freedom and
small government. He contrasted that with "a philosophy that seeks
solutions from distant bureaucracies" and added, "I am a conservative
because I believe government closest to the people governs best."

Again and again during the campaign he hammered that theme. On the
"Larry King Show," in response to a question about a hypothetical
state vote on gay marriage, he replied: "The states can do what they
want to do. Don't try to trap me in this states' issue."

Yet in office, Bush has done just the opposite of what he said he
would do. The Patriot Act has given the federal government
unprecedented powers over American citizens. Arguably, that
legislation may be justified by the need to combat terrorism. But no
such justification exists for Bush's support for a constitutional
amendment to rule out gay marriage. Here, his stated reason for this
proposal is to curb "judicial activism." And what about attempts by
his attorney general to overturn Oregon's law permitting
physician-assisted suicide and to fight against state decisions
allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes? These changes were
brought in at the ballot box, by the state's voters.

Next, take Bush's stance on taxes. Leading up to the 2000 election, he
argued for a tax cut on the basis that the government was running a
huge surplus, and the money should be given back to the taxpayers.
Instead of government spending the money, he said, his preferred
option was "to let the American people spend their own money to meet
their own needs."

When the surplus evaporated and turned into a huge deficit, however,
Bush did not reverse his arguments. Instead, he simply switched
ground, defending a further tax cut on a completely new basis: that it
would benefit the economy. But now a tax cut was not letting the
American people spend their own money; it was letting this generation
of Americans spend the money of future generations.

Finally, there is Bush's policy on the sanctity of human life. In
August 2001, he announced that his administration would not allow
federal funds to be used for research on stem cells if that funding
could encourage the destruction of human embryos — even though there
are more than 400,000 surplus embryos in laboratories across the
country and the chances of most of them ever becoming children are
close to zero.

In defending this policy, the president says he worries about "a
culture that devalues life" and believes that, as president, he has
"an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in
America and throughout the world." Yet under his command, the U.S.
military has, by the most conservative estimates, caused the deaths of
at least 4,000 civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq — the real number
could easily be three times as high — and injured thousands more.
Sometimes a target as insignificant as a single Taliban truck has
brought American bombs down on a village, killing people sleeping in
their homes.

In short, Bush is on the side of the states against "distant
bureaucracies" when he is governor of Texas and on the side of
Washington, D.C., when he is running the federal government. When
there is a budget surplus, he is in favor of tax cuts to return the
surplus to the taxpayers, and when there is a deficit, he is still in
favor of tax cuts.

When he focuses on human embryos, he speaks of his obligation to
foster and encourage respect for life, but when respect for human life
gets in the way of his wish to strike back at those he considers
enemies of the United States, he is willing to bring about the deaths
of thousands of innocent human beings. These are not the actions of a
person of principle.

In an interview with journalist Bob Woodward, Bush repeatedly referred
to his "instincts" or "instinctive reactions" and said: "I'm not a
textbook player. I'm a gut player." That may be true. The problem is
that Bush's moral instincts seem to allow him to sway in whatever
direction seems most convenient.